She is a center in a PF's body. She's a 6'7" player in a 6'4" body. If she were 6'5" and super athletic...
But I wonder what her 3-point shooting is like. I wouldn't be surprised if she could nail 3s nor if she's terrible. But if she can hit 3s, she'll stick. I think an NBA style combine and work out invites would have been good for her.
We don't really have much evidence to support her ability to shoot the three (she was 1 of 2 for her career, if I found accurate stats). However, the fact that she only took 2 3 pointers in her time at Iowa is probably sufficient evidence to say that she does not consider herself capable of reliably making that shot. If she was capable/confident, I'm guessing she'd have occasionally taken the three during the last couple of seasons.
While I would agree with your logic, it's also hard to see the value of shooting a 3 when you're hitting roughly 70% from 2 with a chance at drawing a foul with the sort of usage that she had.
If I'm her and I have a chance at taking a shot that I'm confident in without two or three opposing players draped all over me, I'm going to take it.
Dude, this is taking sabermetrics too far.. and yet not far enough. She had an historic offensive season. She could be a 35% 3-point shooter - which would be perfectly acceptable for her at the WNBA level - and still have a worse impact on the offense than what she did.
Congrats, and here's hoping for a successful career.
My favorite 'story' of the year that wasn't titled 'T.J Hockenson'... Megan was a joy to watch. I wish her success.
"Boys do what they want to do, men do what they need to do". Norm Parker
I was a little disappointed that she dropped that far, but she's still going to be in the league with a chance to prove herself. I have a good feeling that she'll find a significant role for herself.
I think she will be able to carve herself a role as a backup player. Like what was said she is going to be going up against people who are the size and strength of the post players she played in the last two games, but quicker in the WNBA. She showed she can still be productive because she has a lot of moves, is smart and a good passer and she is just so damn good at getting an accurate shot up quickly when she does make a move (that is really an amazing aspect in her game). Defense and speed is going to be tough at that level, but I think she can have a career for awhile
I know that the WNBA is a fundamentally different league than the NBA and the NFL with fewer teams and far fewer resources. I know that the talent pool is a bit shallower than it is in the men's leagues because size is such a huge asset and it is a rarer commodity. I know that the WNBA will never get 5% of the coverage of the men's leagues.
Isn't it amazing that teams can draft players literally a few days after the season ends just based on watching them play in meaningful games? That they somehow don't need Mel Kiper ranting about "escapability" or "body control"? That they don't bring in players for meaningless workouts to see them shoot unguarded jump shots or post up against a chair? That they don't publicize anonymous scouts criticizing the attitudes or work ethics or family situations of players (let's be honest-- of black players)?
It almost makes me think that none of that is really necessary and you'd be better off just drafting the best players.
These are all very solid points about the theater of the men's sports' drafts, and well made. However, even if the WNBA was much more high-profile, the fact that they avoid competing with the NBA for scheduling and resource reasons (TV, arenas, etc.) means that they need to be VERY quick to draft college players in order to get them into camp/practice. This is because their first preseason games start in less than a month and (if I read the schedule correctly) every team appears to have their first preseason game by May 15. If they're going to get new players integrated and up to speed, they have about a month to do so. That means you can't waste ANY time in drafting players as soon as possible after the championship is played and players have had a chance to put in their names. As it is, the timing is barely adequate to let the new draftees learn new schemes and get used to the new level of play. This is also ignoring the fact that these rookies just finished a long grind of a season and those from the best teams have not had much of a break before they start right in on a new season. So the timing of the draft is not ideal for the players by any stretch, and I'm sure the coaches and scouts would want time to bring some players in for workouts. But it's necessary to have the draft in April because of the logistics involved.
TLDR version: The WNBA has to draft in a very small window because their season starts in May and the college players aren't done until early April. This is the reason for the draft being so quick. It's not optimal for most of those involved, but that's how it's going to be as long as the WNBA season starts in May.
Oh yeah, I understand the necessity of it all, and as you say, there are certain drawbacks to the rushed way new players get incorporated into teams, not to mention the fact that WNBA rookies end up playing baskeball for like 10 straight months.
But the secret benefit is that teams get avoid the paralysis by analysis that plagues the NBA and NFL drafts and that allows GMs to talk themselves into insane draft-day decisions.
Another thing that helps WNBA drafters is that the player pool is much smaller and the players are almost all going to have 4 years of college film by which to judge their abilities. As mentioned below in the comment about All-Stars, the women college stars are fewer in number and therefore easier to identify. If/when the WNBA expands and the available talent is sufficient to fill out the rosters, I think we'll see more girls leave college early and the drafting teams make a few more speculative draft picks. Also, we'll probably see some more second-rounders (or undrafted players!) finding themselves as WNBA All-Stars.
It pre-dates by own lifetime, but I wonder if the NBA or ABA saw similar trends when they were fledgling leagues.
Where have you read that NFL teams and NBA teams have "paralysis by analysis" ? I think most teams (and all good teams) have a pretty set draft list. You're not privy to it, and you follow the league as a whole, and you follow all these rumors and this BS, and you see 4 different mock drafts and they're all so different...
But I would just about guarantee you that San Antonio and Houston (and the Patriots and...) have their draft list, and, other than stayers or go-ers, will be about the same 85% from now. Athletic testing should matter in that (it's a part of any draft board), so that will alter things. Personal interviews will alter things some (though a lot of have already done digging), well, anyway... you know all that.
I just think you're seeing the whole forest, but actually missing the trees (the opposite of how it usually is). Like Houston and San Anton don't need to worry about whether Jarret Culver or DeAndre Hunter will be better. They have more leeway, more choice, but more variability. Like, I'm sure San Antonio has a better idea than other teams of what it takes to succeed as a late-round draft pick. They dismiss dozens of guys based off of those factors.
It almost makes me think that none of that is really necessary
It's necessary because someone needs to pay Mel's salary....thus the half dozen Icy Hot commercials with Shaq every hour.
This is just one data point, but I browsed the last 20 years of WNBA drafts on Wikipedia and for sure the track record of picking future all-stars earlier is far better in the WNBA Draft than either NBA or NFL Drafts. Inevitably, if a draft contains somebody who later makes an All-Star team, those women are picked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, in order. I counted less than a dozen players in 20 years picked outside of R1 that ever made an All-Star team, which is pretty remarkable in a league that has only ~12 R1 picks per year.
The NBA has some excuse in that they’re picking much younger players and projecting more, but I think the NFL is actually even worse at drafting than the NBA. You may be correct in your theory that all the pre-draft stuff is unnecessary, and possibly even harmful to making the correct pick.
I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women, and song. The other half I wasted.
As long as people turn in for the draft and pre-draft spectacles, they'll keep showing them.
There's just not that market in the women's game.
Meh... they can do it because they do. the NBA draft is right after the season. Guys do all of this and still draft Adam Morrison because he was the "best player" or trade 2 draft picks to get Doug McDermott because he was the "best player."
LIke, if Megan can nail 3s at a 35% clip, wouldn't she really have liked to show that off at a draft combine, at a pro day, at "Senior Game"?
I meant to also add, "Don't forget that, because there is so little coverage, you almost certainly have no idea about the hit rate and miss rate in the WNBA draft." They might be terrible at it and just wish to hell they had more time, and you have no idea.
go get paid son daughter.
what kind of contract can Meg expect as an early 2nd rounder?
no more yankey Chuck's wankey
When do the Wings play in LA? I'm going.
Neil Peart stands alone
Here, have some of these smelling salts.